> It would go on to become Halsman’s most iconic image.
Indeed!
https://arthur.io/img/art/jpg/00017344b99caa17a/philippe-hal...
'Tiny Shortcuts' Are Poisoning Science
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: 'Tiny Shortcuts' Are Poisoning Science
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are a lot of "soft" sciences that get increasingly softer every year. Social sciences, gender and women's studies, political science, some of the fast and loose use of "economics" these days. I don’t think anyone is claiming these are sciences, except perhaps economics. I think you’re fighting a straw man
People get doctorates in these fields and post studies in journals that get picked up by thinktanks and media outlets. It's "science" for all intents and purposes; they're used as a source of authority based on data and analysis and formal papers.
you keep fighting a strawman that appears to be 'wokism'.
Just so we know you're talking about a real thing, point us to a data and analysis formal paper that you believe exemplary of the "science"
Re: 'Tiny Shortcuts' Are Poisoning Science
#13If a scientist is doing more work to secure grants than doing science (my understanding is that this is very common), trying to justify their own existence, then I wouldn't be surprised that results get skewed towards that end. If every software engineer and developer had to do more work justifying their own existence than actually coding and developing, I suspect overall software quality would be worse than it is to…
Isn't the entire VC funding of modern software the exact thing you're pointing at? And the grifts that have occured because VC funders grivate towards justification of existence rather than anything else.
Isn't the rise of the AI companies that claim they can improve programming yet present such poorly debugged front ends, websites, etc, exactly the "software quality" problem you dont think exists?
I think introspection is required here.
Re: 'Tiny Shortcuts' Are Poisoning Science
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are a lot of "soft" sciences that get increasingly softer every year. Social sciences, gender and women's studies, political science, some of the fast and loose use of "economics" these days. I don’t think anyone is claiming these are sciences, except perhaps economics. I think you’re fighting a straw man
People get doctorates in these fields and post studies in journals that get picked up by thinktanks and media outlets. It's "science" for all intents and purposes; they're used as a source of authority based on data and analysis and formal papers.
"science for all intents and purposes" is the most accidentally flattering anyone has said, and is hilarious in context. Wasn't expecting women's studies to get glazed on HN but I'm here for it :)
Need that on a tee
Re: 'Tiny Shortcuts' Are Poisoning Science
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are a lot of "soft" sciences that get increasingly softer every year. Social sciences, gender and women's studies, political science, some of the fast and loose use of "economics" these days. I don’t think anyone is claiming these are sciences, except perhaps economics. I think you’re fighting a straw man
People get doctorates in these fields and post studies in journals that get picked up by thinktanks and media outlets. It's "science" for all intents and purposes; they're used as a source of authority based on data and analysis and formal papers.
I think your objection is that these fields inform policy and other decisions, and you feel that only science should do that. I think I disagree that only science should inform decisions. Non-science things can inform decisions, we’re generally opposed to murder/racism/bigotry even though there’s no double blind study we can run to determine the correct morality. These fields can impact decisions, and yet not be “science”